Forum Selection Clause Upheld in Medical Malpractice Appeal

Co-authored by Matthew Laver, Partner, and Natahlia Daversa, Law Clerk

The case of Somerlot v. Jung, Sept. Term 2023, No. 2128, (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 25, 2024 Bright, J.) was brought before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on appeal. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of a failed spinal cord operation in 2021. Prior to the surgery, the Plaintiff signed a consent form that contained a clause stating that all actions arising out medical malpractice related to this surgery would be litigated in Bucks County. The plaintiff commenced an action for medical malpractice in Philadelphia County, but the trial court transferred the case to Bucks County on the basis that plaintiffs had agreed to litigate all claims in Bucks County by signing the consent form with the forum selection clause. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the trial court erred in finding the forum selection clause enforceable and subsequently transferring this case to Bucks County.

In its July 30 opinion, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not err in finding the forum selection clause to be enforceable and transferring the case. The court explained that a plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given weighty consideration, but it is not dispositive of where a case should be litigated. Here, the court focused on the forum selection clause the plaintiff signed prior to surgery, finding that a valid forum selection clause should control unless there are exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances where a forum selection clause will be deemed unenforceable include: (1) the clause itself was induced by fraud or overreaching; (2) the forum selected in the clause is so unfair or inconvenient that a party will be deprived of the opportunity to be heard; or (3) the clause is found to violate public policy. Patriot Commer. Leasing CO. v. Kremer Res. Enters., LLC, 2006 PA Super 371, ¶ 8, 915 A.2d 647, 651. The court stated that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case. As such, the court reasoned that Bucks County was the proper venue because the Plaintiff’s signature on the consent form constituted an “original choice of forum.” The court explained that the clear structure and language paired with the reasonable terms of the agreement rendered the forum selection clause reasonable and valid, meaning the transfer to Bucks County should be upheld.